NationStates

The North Polish Union wrote:Has the GA set an age of consent for invasive medical procedures, above which parents cannot consent on behalf of their children?

The North Polish Union wrote:Has the GA set an age of consent for invasive medical procedures, above which parents cannot consent on behalf of their children?

Thousand Branches wrote:Two questions today.

One: Is it legal to force an individual member state to create a committee (sort of in the same way there is a large list of GA-wide committees but as an individual member nation thing)?

Thousand Branches wrote:Two: Is it legal to mention a previously repealed resolution in a later resolution, given that the resolution is repealed and cannot be un-repealed?

Bears Armed wrote:

Thousand Branches wrote:Two: Is it legal to mention a previously repealed resolution in a later resolution, given that the resolution is repealed and cannot be un-repealed?

If you're mentioning its repeal as justification for a replacement then potentially (depending on how you word that reference) it could be legal.

Rick Perry wrote:Do the proposals have to be on a specific thing or anything?

JAIBHARAT wrote:

Pacific Settlement of Disputes
Article 1
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 2
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 3
Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions.
Article 4
The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
Article 5
Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
Article 6
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 1 to 5, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

Croato-Slavia wrote:What do OOC, IC, etc. mean?

Phydios wrote:

Croato-Slavia wrote:What do OOC, IC, etc. mean?

OOC: Out of Character, used when a player is speaking as themselves and not as their fictional nation or anyone in it.
IC: In Character, the opposite of OOC.
Etc: Et cetera, Latin for "and the rest".

Thousand Branches wrote:I’m curious how to just sorta confirm whether something is legal or illegal before it’s submitted

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Thousand Branches wrote:I’m curious how to just sorta confirm whether something is legal or illegal before it’s submitted

Frankly, you can't. You can take a look at it with other people to hopefully foreclose legality challenges. But someone might notice something subtle late in drafting or even at vote which makes the proposal illegal.

Thamesholm and Wallborough wrote:Is there any concept of martial law in WA law?

Can people suspected of internal (violent) rebellion
(In a civil war scenario) be tried by military courts if martial law is declared?

Thousand Branches wrote:Noticed this today, but should the joke proposal link be changed in the rules post? It has the outdated link (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=548) still and it was replaced a whiiiiile back with: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807. Oh did I say a while back? I actually meant 8 years ago Either way, I think that should be updated, yes?

Katorisa wrote:Eh yeah question, what are the rules for resolutions in the WA, pls send me link if it exist. My last resolution was declared illegal and I don't want to make that mistake again

Thousand Branches wrote:Okay I’m back for more on the rules post (sorry). This wording:

“A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong.”

That’s grammatically incorrect. I’m guessing it’s missing an “affects” after “which”? That would be the most obvious solution (although notably, that “which” probably also works better as “that”).

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Thousand Branches wrote:Okay I’m back for more on the rules post (sorry). This wording:

“A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong.”

That’s grammatically incorrect. I’m guessing it’s missing an “affects” after “which”? That would be the most obvious solution (although notably, that “which” probably also works better as “that”).

There are many errors – grammatical and otherwise – in the Rules thread. I once tried to fix one error. It took 11 months.

• The description for the Educational and Creativity/Artistic category reads "Artistic is just what you'd expect - government funding for the Arts. No more trying to sneak it in under human rights." This is despite the fact that Human Rights has been called Civil Rights since 2018.
• The Civil Rights/Moral Decency section contains a passage on Civil Freedoms declaring that ""Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them." Again, HR hasn't been called that for three years.
• In the Environmental section, there should not be a comma after "Fishing,;"... and the examples given for the "All Business" subcategory should be for "All Businesses". Said section also ends with the phrase "...where as strong is the most impacful of any environmental resolution"; that should read "...whereas strong is the most impactful of any environmental resolution" instead.
• "With regard to the Social Justice category and the three strengths," the Social Justice category says, "when determining whether or not your policy is mild, strong or significant ask yourself, are you covering general welfare, or are you including healthcare." Yet healthcare has had its own category since 2014!
• There are repeated references to "The Furtherment of Democracy"; the "The" was removed some time ago but I don't know when.
• The end of the post warns that "If your nation gets thrown out of the WA, then that's permanent." In fact, permanent WA bans have not been issued since 2016.